More than Just a Rating discussion

What special words do you like to use when you write reviews? Are you sure that all your readers know what you mean by them?

What terms have you encountered that just didn't really make sense to you? Ask for clarification here!

I read a lot of children's books, so I use the term 'didactic' a lot. I use it in a negative sense, about fiction books that are more about teaching the children something than about sharing stories.

"Five Little Peppers and How They Grew was too didactic to be enjoyable. Lessons about how to perservere through poverty and about the importance of family can be better learned from more fun books like Little House on the Prairie."

I won't name names, but I've read a member of feedback write that they don't read many reviews here because people tend to write 'book reports.' Does anybody have a thought what is meant by a book report in that context?

You know I don't know what the writer intended by those comments, but I did wonder if they referred to the reiteration of the story/plot synopsis?

So, I will pose a question: is a synopsis of the book valuable in a review, especially if it is almost word for word from the "back of the book" or fly-leaf? I do like to have a sense of what the book's theme is, but I don't know how much value this brings to the review. Any thoughts on this?

That's a terrific question! I hope you don't mind, but since I don't want it to get lost in this topic, I'm going to bring it over to the 'questions and discussions' folder. Meet me there? :)

Oh, and may I ask what you mean by 'theme' - all I know about it is some vague memory from school long time ago that I can't even articulate here....

BunWat wrote: "Theme means the central idea, subject, argument, of a work. Possibly plural, many books have more than one theme. So for example, one of the themes of Frances Hodgson Burnett's A Little Princess..."

How about "plot arc"? I see this in some reviews and I get picture of a graph in my head...
However, if "a story arc is an extended or continuing storyline in episodic storytelling media such as television, comic books," Wikipedia link, I am not sure that I understand it's use in the context of a single book. I kind of like the mental picture I get, but I don't think it always works e.g. stories that flash back and forth etc.
BTW, would you use "story" and "plot" interchangeably?

Personally, I wouldn't. Imo, good stories don't always have much of plot. I use plot to talk about drama, or conflict & resolution, or books where the excitement is more in focus than the characters (or theme, or setting, or...). Story, to me, is less specific - a children's book that's a simple account of the seasons of the year could be considered a story.

Cheryl in CC NV wrote: "Does anybody have a thought what is meant by a book report in that context?"

I remember writing book reports in grade school. They never had to be deep and insightful but basically served to prove to the teacher that you had read the assigned reading.

The book report was about the who/what/where/when/why of the story. Occasionally you would have a teacher who wanted to know the theme, or what you felt about the book. But, for the most part it was about the factual data in the book.

That said, I think the "book report" term being thrown around is in reference to a review that summarizes the book but doesn't give the reader much insight to how you felt about the book.

Huh. I remember being both a student and a teacher, and knowing that a book report was expected to be creative and interpretive. No wonder so many people don't read books out of school if they were expected to just summarize - that doesn't make reading fun. Wow.

Oof da. That's more complicated than I, personally, want to adhere to in my reviews. :)

BunWat wrote: "Arc seems like kind of a fad term to me, borrowed from screenwriting really.

I do often talk about plot - as distinguished from character, tone, etc. I can like a book and not like the plot at ..."

I agree that arc is a bit of a fad term. I can't imagine using it in a review unless I was reviewing a series rather than an individual book, which isn't something I've done to date.

I don't talk about plot a lot in reviews, although I do note strong plotting or problems I have with the plot. I generally don't give a plot summary, because (almost) every book I've ever reviewed has had its plot discussed by other reviewers, sometimes at great length.

I too can enjoy a book even if I don't like the plot very much, particularly if there is something which engages me in the writer's style and use of language. I can also enjoy a novel because it's got a great plot even if the writing's not that interesting. However, that's harder for me. Bad writing can ruin my enjoyment of even the most fascinating plot!

Other things I refer to in a review may include theme, style, character development and the use of the narrative voice.

Characterization - how someone is creating and expressing their characters through narrative.
plot-driven - a work that focuses on the action
character-driven - a work that focuses on the evolution of the characters
I like these words because they give you a short way to say what kind of book it is. And characterization is very clever sounding ;).

Don't forget another possibility, I don't know if anyone says it, but some stories & novels are also 'idea-driven.' Like some science-fiction, where plot and characters are mostly just tools the author uses to explore ideas about technology, or alien cultures, or whatever.

I also have enjoyed books where the setting was as important to the enjoyment of the book any of the characters or the plot. Eve Green is one that comes immediately to mind, and which I referenced in my review.

Oh, Elizabeth, I see what you mean - yes, setting, a sense of a place and a time, can be the most significant thing ... that looks like a truly special book.

That's a good point Elizabeth. I can think of lots of fantasy books(my fav genre) where the world development was central to my enjoyment.
So I'll add the word-
Worldbuilding - creating an organic and believable world for the characters and action to occur in.

"Magical Realism" It sounds self-explanatory, and I can guess a vague idea of what it means... but do any of you use it? Do any of you think it means something rather particular and I should be careful how to use it, or is it broad/ inclusive?

Right now I'm reading The Sound of Colors: A Journey of the Imagination and I *think* the term might apply, but I don't want to use the term in my review, and be wrong, and lead potential readers to expect something they won't get.

Ah. Ok, then I would think the book I mention qualifies. The metaphor represented by the magic isn't political, but it's still significant.

Thanks for elaborating - that all makes sense to me. I see it as an 'element' of a story. Don't know how to explain what I mean - but I do believe it can be used when talking about other genres than capital L Literature, including picture-books.

Kim wrote: "BunWat wrote: "Arc seems like kind of a fad term to me, borrowed from screenwriting really.

I do often talk about plot - as distinguished from character, tone, etc. I can like a book and not like..."

I can see using "plot arc" in evaluating what impact a particular book has on the series to which it belongs. Does this book change the trajectory of the series plot arc? Being specific about the change would probably be a spoiler, but mentioning that the book does represent a radical change in the series plot arc would be useful, I think.

Cheryl in CC NV wrote: " Don't forget another possibility, I don't know if anyone says it, but some stories & novels are also 'idea-driven.' Like some science-fiction, where plot and characters are mostly just tools the..."

Re idea driven-- I believe the terminology used is "concept driven", Cheryl.

Concept driven - ok, thanks - I've never seen that before, but I do like it.

Plot arc - I have no knowledge or opinion - hope someone else does.

Still thinking about magical realism. By the logic of this statement, about Gulliver's Travels and others, "But none of those would be magical realism because they predate the literary movement that was named magical realism," Jules Verne did not write science fiction.

Seems to me that if we can retroactively apply the term science fiction we can do the same with MR. Or am I still confused?

If magical realism is tied to a specific movement and to use it anywhere else is seen as ignorant or disrespectful or something, then a lot more people than I need to be admonished.

I don't know about "back-dating" literary terms, but I know that YA didn't apply until 25 or so years ago when the publishing industry started targeting that age group (whatever it is) as a marketing ploy and to boost business. Many books now called YA (To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn come immediately to mind) were written for adult audiences and are now incorrectly called YA.

Hm. Isn't 'incorrectly' a judgement call? Who arbitrates YA and decided these shouldn't be called that?

Fwiw, my library has two copies of several books that could be considered Juvenile or YA - they bought two copies simply so the book could be simultaneously shelved in both places.

Similarly, calling TKaM YA doesn't mean it's not *also* Adult. I'm not sure your analogy works toward the discussion of magical realism. (But I definitely could be wrong or confused!)

I leave magical realism aside. What I've read that I *know* is called magical realism isn't of interest to me.

However, I bristle at something being called YA when it isn't. YA is a book intentionally written for Young Adults. Many books were written for adults but are suitable for younger audiences.

"YA is a book intentionally written for Young Adults." Well ok then. Considering they're generally written for teens, that seems to be an odd definition. But let's say we substitute the word teens, or the phrase 'the Young Adult market.' Ok. It works. But I'm glad my library doesn't adhere to that definition, but rather does put copies of TKaM on the YA shelves.

Personally, I'd tag good books with as many categories and keywords as I could, to try to get them to the widest possible audience. :)

I sometimes find what gets on the YA wall to be pretty inappropriate. Then again, the whole bookshelf wall thing has always bothered me. Does Feasting on Asphalt belong in Food or in Biography? Does Octavia Butler belong in Sci-fi/Fantasy, or in African American Literature, or in the regular fiction section? How does C.S. Lewis get to be in childrens, YA, Literature, and Sci-fi/Fantasy? Argh!

Library classification systems such as the Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress were developed based on the premise that a book cannot be shelved in two places. Each classification number is unique. It is intended to locate the book on only one shelf.

Bookstore classification and virtual shelves like we have at Goodreads don't have this sort of precision. You can shelve the same book in multiple sections in a bookstore. You can also select as many non-exclusive shelves as you like to classify a book on Goodreads.

A library that shelves a book in multiple sections is subverting the library classification paradigm which demands that a book have only one location. But books really are more complex than is allowed by this paradigm. There should be more flexibility--especially in fiction. If a library can afford to buy multiple copies of the same title and shelve one in each section that might be applicable, that's great. But not all libraries can afford to do this. It's definitely a dilemma, Sarah.

BunWat wrote: "Its not about the author's intent its about the bookseller's intent. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young-ad...

We may both be right, although I note the first sentence of the third paragraph of the above reads: It is generally agreed that Young Adult Literature is literature written for adolescent readers, and in some cases published by adolescent writers.

In the style of...
Can I get a definition of Style, delicious friends? :o

ditto what Sarah said - I think I can go along with what you, BunWat, said about M.R. and 'noir' then.., probably...

Hmm... Ok... I'm gonna have to ponder on that... especially re' "in the style of (noir or magical realism)."

Ok, let's see if we can agree on a definition of "steampunk" in the context of using it effectively on goodreads.

I get the clockwork and Victorian age basic idea (I think!) but apparently some say Howl's Moving Castle counts. I don't understand why.

And, I thought 'steam' was a reference to the notion that technology remained mechanical (or, sometimes, biological), and didn't develop to use electricity. So I'm not sure Darwinia counts (even though I read it for a steampunk challenge because it was on a Listopia list).

I think one of the issues with Steampunk is that it has evolved more as an aesthetic than as a genre of it's own. There are definitely books that can be defined as Steampunk, but there can be a Steampunk presence in alternate history, science fiction, dystopian, utopian, fantasy and more.

Technology in Steampunk comes in several varieties. It can be clockwork or steam-powered, yes. But when dig deeper, it is technology that could have been, but isn't. Wide-spread use of dirigibles, Charles Babbage's Difference Engine, vacuum tubes (though they weren't replaced by transistors until the 1950s), and the electric inventions of Edison and Tesla can all be considered Steampunk technology. In fact, I'd consider almost anything prior to the introduction of transistors fair game for Steampunk.

The Victorian Era is widely used as the setting for Steampunk works, but it's definitely not a requirement. In fact, I think the Victoria Era is merely a convenient setting for the bigger picture - the effects of industrial revolution (not necessarily THE Industrial Revolution). Industrial revolutions upset the status quo of a society, and a lot of themes in Steampunk - wars, political corruption and unrest, oppression, colonization, and over-industrialization, are effects of that upset.

To speak to your examples...

I have not read Howl's Moving Castle, but I hear Miyazaki's film version is very similar, and I just read the plot for the book online. I think a lot of people are mislabeling the book as Steampunk because of the castle, though I believe it's actually magically powered by Calcifer? Here is an image of the castle from the movie, it definitely LOOKS Steampunk.

But... I actually think this is more a side-effect of the genre display. Out of 27,000+ adds, only 40 people have shelved it as Steampunk. (I think I just had an idea for Feedback, I will think on this).

Darwinia... based on the synopsis I would classify it as alternate history. Based on the plot summary I read it could also be classified as sci-fi, it seems oddly reminiscent of The Hitchhiker's Guide.

(I really need to stop writing novels for posts ;)...)

Thanks for going into detail for clarity, you two. My sense of what it means seems to be fairly close enough. Darwinia stretches the classification even if one tries to draw the boundaries loosely, but I can see why some people would be inclined to include it.

And, yes, the Castle of the film, in the image Vicky provided, is pretty darn cool and evocative of steampunk - but it is not really what my mind's eye saw when I read the book...

I guess maybe I, personally, am best off avoiding any classification terminology and should just write about what was in the book, and describe elements of style, rather than use labels.

There's also a lot of -punk genres that are derivative from steampunk, with different settings, like clockpunk, dieselpunk, the Wierd West, Gaslamp Fantasy, etc.
I like to call it "History Made Awesome."

genre benders - love it - sure a good way for an author to be deemed 'original' - usually taken as a compliment

doesn't always work, but when it does - 'groundbreaking' becomes the word

If you like genre benders or books that can't be pigeon holed as being this or that, then I have to ask if you have tried Jasper Fforde?

I agree that the steampunk label has been diffused and I think it is being used more as a selling gimmick. What I find interesting is how a book is marketed genre wise. The title, cover and blurb are all skewed to a specific genre classification, like YA or PNR, when it really fits better someplace else. I understand the business side of it but I don't have to like it.

(I tried Fforde, and should like him, but somehow didn't, thanks.)

yeah, let's not get started on complaining about marketing strategies! Or, at least, let's make a better topic thread for it. :)

Cheryl in CC NV wrote: "I won't name names, but I've read a member of feedback write that they don't read many reviews here because people tend to write 'book reports.' Does anybody have a thought what is meant by a book..."

What I mean about book reports I guess aren't really reports. It's more like a bunch of paragraphs answering questions about the theme, mood, characters ect. There isn't anything fun about them. They're just... blah.

blah indeed

I think a review gets too book reporty when there's a closing line like "If you are a fan of X, then you will definitely enjoy this book!" because that's always how we were taught to end a book report in middle school. Even then I thought it was terrible.

Also, what you all call "story arc" I was taught in graduate school to call "narrative." Although I think I've probably used "story arc" too.

Zaira (Allisa) wrote: "Cheryl in CC NV wrote: "I won't name names, but I've read a member of feedback write that they don't read many reviews here because people tend to write 'book reports.' Does anybody have a thought..."

As one who has probably written one of those "blah" book reports...not to be confused with one who "wants" to write one of those blah book reports... I would say that most of mine are not (anymore). I only have two things to think for that...one, when reviewing for a group read or something like that, often there are questions to answer (for discussion starters on the thread) and other things like that...

So, yea, book report, but sometimes that is what was called for. (not that it has to be on the review, sometimes I put those extended analytical comments in a blog post or something rather than the book review.) but ... yea, if the group has questions, then, I answer them...

The other thing I would point out is that, nobody wants to read a book report, even a teacher in high school. So, it's kind of an easy way to dismiss a book review by calling it a "book report."

Sometimes there are what the reviewer thinks are important items in a book to be discussed like an author who has degrading roles for women, or someone who doesn't understand PTSD and misrepresents it in a wat that is degrading or harmful to those with PTSD.

Those are imprtant issues to bring out. However, some people just don't want to hear it (read it). So, they discount it as "a book report," while others do embrace the issue.

I'm not saying you should go easier on peopole who think a review "is" a book report, which is pretty much me in the early days on GR. I'm just saying that, take that comment with a grain of salt. Sometimes what one person is thinking of as a book report (simply because it wasn't important to them) may actually be a necessary, maybe even heroic conversation to start.

Sure, that makes sense that people's perspectives differ, and take everything with a grain of salt. Thanks for sharing, both of you!

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that summarizing the plot of a story is equivalent to writing a book report. Granted a good review should be more than a plot summary, but doesn't a reviewer have to summarize the plot just so the reader has some idea of what the reviewer is going on about? How does a reviewer talk about characters or plot if they haven't already established that Bob is a character and the plot involves x,y, and z?

I feel like summarizing plot should be part of a good review because it lays down common terms. To talk in depth about elements which succeed or fail in a novel, it seems like a good idea to first identify the elements used. At least that's how I've always written reviews for The Unbound Underground. But I can understand if people dislike reviews which only consist of plot summary in the vein of a blow-by-blow recap like "this character did this, and then did this. And then another character responded in this way." That's how I've always felt book-reports were written, and yes, they were boring to read and write.

But I do think reviews benefit from a general summary of the plot just to establish for readers what is being discussed in the first place.

Unbound wrote: "I'm not sure I agree with the idea that summarizing the plot of a story is equivalent to writing a book report. Granted a good review should be more than a plot summary, but doesn't a reviewer hav..."

I get what you're saying, Unbound, and that's why I will summarize a book if I review it on my blog--just so someone reading the review has context for it. But on Goodreads, when the plot summary is two inches away on the same screen, it really seems redundant. If I copy a review over from my blog, I will revise the summarization out.

Oh, I totally agree with you about posting reviews on goodreads or shelfari or some other site where the author's book summary is readily available. I guess I misunderstood the discussion and thought we were talking about plot summaries in reviews in general. Sorry.